tiltbillings wrote:Then trying to tie the tathagata, alive or dead, to the khandha of consciousness has no meaning. Good to see you have changed your mind.

I never did change my mind. Please forgive me for not being more clear. I thought I was clear enough in my first post that Arahant is not tied to any aggregate, including consciousness.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

The 'Self' or the 'Thatagata' is a 'projection' of our minds on to what is seen, heard, sensed etc. That projection carries with it qualities (should I say none of the 'ultimate' truth) created by the mind of the onlooker. A sense awe, holiness, perhaps a sense of lineage etc all enter into that projection. However what the onlooker does not recognise is that even now, there is only khandas arising and passing away- it is all dukkha, not the sukha awe and wonder which was projected. We could almost say that 99.9% of what we considered as the Thatagata only exists in the onlooker's mind. Hence, 'the thatagata cannot be found even now'.

But what is it, that was the cause of the tatagatha projection/delusion? It was the aggregates (khandas) - a kind of Self-view. Then while the projection is a delusion, the khandas 'exist' (barely) in a causally arisen, transient and insubstantial manner- Ven Nanananda said:'the mirage (even though a mirage), exists (for it to be perceived)'. So perhaps to say that that the thatagata/arahanth IS the khandas is inaccurate. To talk of them AS IF they were the Khandas may be confusing to some. To purposefully misunderstand the above is just devious, with a good measure of 'nail hammering' thrown in for those who 'dare' to speak against the common view, rightly or wrongly. As long as we are unenlightened, the sutta said, we can have misconceptions about nibbana. So assuming your own view is correct, without approaching different views with an open mind, without trying to see the other's perspective, without approaching dhamma discussion as an opportunity to learn rather than debate endlessly is not helping Dhammawheel, nor the dhamma, nor the practioner. I think if a person doesn't understand after a reasonable number of attempts, then anything further is just a play of defilements (like clinging to view, conceit, cruelty and trying save face etc).

Honest to gawd, I have read the above through several times, and I am not all sure what you are saying or to whom it is directed. The bottom line is, in my opinion (with a nod to Seng T'san), there is no point in trying to tie the tathagata to a point of view, which pretty much seems to be the Buddha's point.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

rowyourboat wrote:The 'Self' or the 'Thatagata' is a 'projection' of our minds on to what is seen, heard, sensed etc. That projection carries with it qualities (should I say none of the 'ultimate' truth) created by the mind of the onlooker. A sense awe, holiness, perhaps a sense of lineage etc all enter into that projection. However what the onlooker does not recognise is that even now, there is only khandas arising and passing away- it is all dukkha, not the sukha awe and wonder which was projected. We could almost say that 99.9% of what we considered as the Thatagata only exists in the onlooker's mind. Hence, 'the thatagata cannot be found even now'.

But what is it, that was the cause of the tatagatha projection/delusion?

So when the Buddha said "the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea" he was referring to a projection/delusion?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

The difficulty of anyone who has seen and understood that there is only the five aggregates, through vipassana, is to communicate that insight (ie that way of 'seeing') to someone who hasn't. This ultimate reality/ conventional reality dichotomy is a hurdle in developing a Right view before the start of vipassana meditation. It is litterally the difference between seeing actors on a tv screen vs seeing the pixels of the screen which make up those 'actors', who don't ultimately exist.

So sometime to communicate the deep dhamma the Buddha has to use conventional terminology sometimes. Why should the Tathagata be hard to see? The conventional Tathagata is very easy to see. What is hard to see is the aggregates that we 'erroneously' label as the tathagatha. The pixels do exist, but they are deep and hard to see. Hope that makes some sense.

The difficulty of anyone who has seen and understood that there is only the five aggregates, through vipassana, is to communicate that insight (ie that way of 'seeing') to someone who hasn't. This ultimate reality/ conventional reality dichotomy is a hurdle in developing a Right view before the start of vipassana meditation. It is litterally the difference between seeing actors on a tv screen vs seeing the pixels of the screen which make up those 'actors', who don't ultimately exist.

So sometime to communicate the deep dhamma the Buddha has to use conventional terminology sometimes. Why should the Tathagata be hard to see? The conventional Tathagata is very easy to see. What is hard to see is the aggregates that we 'erroneously' label as the tathagatha. The pixels do exist, but they are deep and hard to see. Hope that makes some sense.

With metta

Matheesha

Hi Matheesha

So then it is the aggregates which are "deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea"?

"Even so, Vaccha, any form... feeling... perception... fabrication... consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form... feeling... perception... fabrication... consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

It is the aggregates which the Tathagata "has abandoned" which are deep and boundless, like the sea?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

No, that would require reading that passage as if the Tathagata was to be taken as the aggregates, which we know is incorrect.

Rather it is the very fact that the/a Tathagata is hard to fathom that we are having this discussion in the first place, the thing being that all "fathomings" will be incorrect since beyond conventional convenience the designation "tathagata" or "arahant" is no longer applicable.

Kenshou wrote:No, that would require reading that passage as if the Tathagata was to be taken as the aggregates, which we know is incorrect.

Rather it is the very fact that the/a Tathagata is hard to fathom that we are having this discussion in the first place, the thing being that all "fathomings" will be incorrect since beyond conventional convenience the designation "tathagata" or "arahant" is no longer applicable.

Matheesha said "there is only the five aggregates" and that's what we're supposed to "see and understand through Vipassana"

If that's all there is, then that's all that could be said to be "deep."

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

"Even so, Vaccha, any form... feeling... perception... fabrication... consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form... feeling... perception... fabrication... consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

Putajjanas would think of one of the aggregates (his body, his teachings etc) when they think of the tathagatha - because they haven't seen that for the Tathagata all these aggregates have been (in his meditation and practice) been completely wipes clean of attachment (this is MY body), and delusion (this aggregate is Me). The Tathagata would not see a difference (as far as I understand) between his body and that of the rock he is sitting on as far as sense of self goes. His sense of self is wiped out, with wisdom. Furthermore he is 'destroyed the root' in terms of avijja/lobha. They have lost their 'life' -their ability to cause a strong impact on the mind- 'made like a palmyra stump', no more craving for them, so no more profileration of the aggregates - 'deprived the condition for development', and with the absence of avijja/lobha, even though they are arising now due to past avijja/lobha, there will be no rebirth-'not destined for future arising'. I would add that the Tathagata has seen the non-arising of the aggregates as well, when the fetters are broken, but that might be too controversial, but would add to intensify the meaning of the above verse. So we have a situation where someone has seen the utter destruction of everything that we would normally use to denote a 'person', yet something still exists. The Tathagata is truly untraceable, hard to understand. It can only be understood through direct experience, but perhaps never adequately conceptualised, as Kirk suggested. I guess this is applicable to a lot of meditative experiences, like jhana etc.

rowyourboat wrote: Ven Nanananda said:'the mirage (even though a mirage), exists (for it to be perceived)'.

I've been thinking lately about the Ven. Ñanananda's ideas regarding námarúpa, and would like to know from where this quote came. Is it from Magic of the Mind , Nibbana Sermons, or is it from some other of his writings?

i think, this the most 'eye-opening' topics of the Buddha. The question of annata(anatma), No-self. The question of annhilation arises due to our clinging of the concept of self. But to a Tathagata it does not apply because the arahant only sees cause and effect in this sea of impermanence. There is no self. Our form gets broken down and converted to something else. The hydrogen, carbon atoms that make your body was once the atoms of maybe a star or a plant. The feelings are there dependent on something. So are perceptions, sankharas and vinnana(vijnana or consciousness). This is an aggregate of these 5 things. It is a changing impermanent aggregate. The arahant aware of this sees no self, thus the concept of annhilation does not apply. Metta...and may Sati be tirelessly awake

rowyourboat wrote: Ven Nanananda said:'the mirage (even though a mirage), exists (for it to be perceived)'.

I've been thinking lately about the Ven. Ñanananda's ideas regarding námarúpa, and would like to know from where this quote came. Is it from Magic of the Mind , Nibbana Sermons, or is it from some other of his writings?

Thanks,pulga

Hi Pulga

Sorry for the delay- I hope you are still around- yes, it is from one of the nibbana sermons- can't pin point which one because there are so many- possibly one of the earlier sermons.

dharmaamrita wrote:i think, this the most 'eye-opening' topics of the Buddha. The question of annata(anatma), No-self. The question of annhilation arises due to our clinging of the concept of self. But to a Tathagata it does not apply because the arahant only sees cause and effect in this sea of impermanence. There is no self. Our form gets broken down and converted to something else. The hydrogen, carbon atoms that make your body was once the atoms of maybe a star or a plant. The feelings are there dependent on something. So are perceptions, sankharas and vinnana(vijnana or consciousness). This is an aggregate of these 5 things. It is a changing impermanent aggregate. The arahant aware of this sees no self, thus the concept of annhilation does not apply. Metta...and may Sati be tirelessly awake

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

[Sariputta] how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"[Yamaka] "Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."